Taueki v The Queen
[2019] NZSC 82
•26 July 2019
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI |
| SC 55/2019 [2019] NZSC 82 |
| BETWEEN | PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI |
| AND | THE QUEEN |
| Court: | Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 26 July 2019 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
Introduction
Mr Taueki has been charged with three offences (two counts of threatening to kill and one of intimidation). The charges arise out of interactions on 17 May 2018 between Mr Taueki and the three complainants as he was leaving the Levin Court building after a Maori Land Court hearing. Mr Taueki sought to have the charges dismissed under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on the ground that there was no case to answer. Judge Sygrove was satisfied on the basis of the evidence before the District Court that the application under s 147 was not made out and the application was dismissed.[1] Mr Taueki now seeks leave to appeal directly to this Court from that decision.
[1]New Zealand Police v Taueki [2019] NZDC 12521.
Mr Taueki says that there are exceptional circumstances in terms of s 75 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 to justify an appeal directly to this Court from the District Court decision.[2] In particular, Mr Taueki says a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi has been established which affects the ability of the Crown to rely on sovereignty in these circumstances. It is Mr Taueki’s case that the Treaty breach arises from this Court’s earlier decision determining that Mr Taueki was not in peaceable possession of ancestral land (in the area of Lake Horowhenua)[3] and to an earlier decision of the High Court ruling that the District Court was wrong to dismiss a charge of trespass in relation to buildings situated on Horowhenua Block XI.[4] On this basis, Mr Taueki wishes to argue that Judge Sygrove did not have jurisdiction to dismiss the s 147 application.
[2]Previously s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
[3]Taueki v R [2013] NZSC 146, [2014] 1 NZLR 235.
[4]New Zealand Police v Taueki [2016] NZHC 3098.
In opposing the application for leave, the respondent submits there is no jurisdiction for the Court to hear Mr Taueki’s appeal. The respondent relies in this respect on Court of Appeal decisions holding there is no jurisdiction for an appeal by a defendant under the relevant provision (s 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act) against a refusal to dismiss charges.[5] Section 296(3)(a) relevantly provides for appeals on questions of law in respect of “proceedings that relate to or follow the determination of the charge”. The effect of the cases relied on is that those words do not extend to the decision to decline to dismiss a charge. Under s 71(a) of the Senior Courts Act, this Court can hear and determine appeals which are authorised by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The respondent submits that because there cannot be an appeal from the refusal to dismiss charges under s 147, there is no appeal under s 71 and the direct appeal under s 75 of the Senior Courts Act is similarly unavailable.
Assessment
[5]D (CA716/2015) v R [2016] NZCA 190 at [14]–[23]; and Rowell v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2016] NZCA 471 at [22]–[24]. See also Anderson v R [2015] NZCA 518, [2016] 2 NZLR 321; H (CA714/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 34; and [W] v R [2019] NZSC 53 at [6]–[8].
There is, as the respondent submits, a question about the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In any event, there are no exceptional circumstances. There is no reason why this Court needs to hear the matter especially given the nature of the particular proceeding in the District Court. We add that, if convicted, there is a right of appeal against conviction.
The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent
0
2
0